Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/963,393, filed 11/27/2024, which is a continuing application as disclosed.
Claims 1-26 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-15, 20-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shearer(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2017/0238392; cited on IDs filed).
Shearer discloses a method of controlling color temperature in a space(see Fig. 8), the method comprising:
controlling a position of a window treatment fabric of a motorized window treatment based on a control mode or user preference(see para. [0096]);
determining a color temperature of outside light entering the space(see para. [0097]); and
adjusting the color temperature of light emitted by one or more lighting fixtures based on the color temperature of the outside light entering the space(see para. [0097]).
Regarding claim 2, Shearer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the position of the window treatment fabric of the motorized window treatment is further controlled based on a color temperature threshold (such as 7,000 K, see para. [0105], line 21) and a color temperature of outside light outside of the space (the controller control the window/shade based on the ambient temperature, see para. [0105).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Shearer discloses the method of claims 2 and 15, wherein the color temperature of the outside light outside of the space is measured by an outside color temperature sensor (the sensor is measured the light from outside through the window, see para. [0097], lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 4, Shearer discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the color temperature threshold corresponds to the control mode or the user preference (user preference, see para. [0111]).
Regarding claim 9, Shearer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the color temperature of the outside light entering the space is determined based on the position(close or open) of the window treatment fabric of the motorized window treatment and at least one characteristic of window treatment fabric (the different kind of shades, see para. [0088]) associated with the motorized window treatment (see para. [0088]).
Regarding claim 10, Shearer discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises an openness factor or a color (openness of the window, sections 0088, 0105).
Regarding claim 11, Shearer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the color temperature of the light emitted by the one or more lighting fixtures is decreased when the color temperature of the outside light entering the space is greater than a setpoint color (TABLE 1, section 0044) control temperature (see para. [0105]).
Regarding claim 12, Shearer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the color temperature of the light emitted by the one or more lighting fixtures is increased when the color temperature of the outside light entering the space is less than a setpoint color (TABLE 1, see para. [0044]) control temperature (see para. [0105]).
Regarding claim 13, Shearer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the color temperature of the outside light entering the space or the light emitted by the one or more lighting fixtures is measured by an interior color temperature sensor in the space (each of the light sources may be installed with the light sources, see para. [0107], lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 14, Shearer discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the interior color temperature sensor is located on the lighting fixture (each of the light sources may be installed with the light sources, see para. [0107], lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 15, Shearer discloses a method of controlling color temperature in a space(see Fig. 8), the method comprising:
determining a color temperature of light outside of the space(see para. [0097); and
controlling a position of a window treatment fabric of a motorized window treatment based on the color temperature of the light outside of the space(see paras. [0096] and [0097]).
Regarding claim 21, Shearer discloses a system controller(see para. [0096]) comprising:
a control circuit configured to:
determine a color temperature of light outside of the space;
determine a color temperature of outside light entering the space based on the color temperature of the light outside of the space; and adjust the color temperature of light emitted by one or more lighting fixtures based on the color temperature of the outside light entering the space(see paras. [0096], [0097] and [0105] and rejection of claims 1-3 above).
Regarding claim 22, Shearer discloses the system controller of claim 21, wherein the control circuit is further configured to: determine a setpoint color temperature for the space; and adjust the color temperature of the light emitted by the one or more lighting fixtures based on the setpoint color temperature(TABLE 1, see para. [0044]) control temperature (see para. [0105], and rejection of claims 11-12 above).
Regarding 23, Shearer discloses he system controller of claim 22, wherein the setpoint color temperature is determined based on a control mode or user preference(the para. [0111] and rejection of claim 4 above).
Regarding claim 24, Shearer discloses the system controller of claim 21, wherein the control circuit is configured to determine the color temperature of the outside light entering the space based on the position of the window treatment fabric of the motorized window treatment(opened or closed) and at least one characteristic of window treatment fabric associated with the motorized window treatment(the different kind of shades, see para. [0088]).
Regarding claim 26, Shearer discloses the system controller of claim 21, the system controller further comprising a communication circuit(see para. [0105]), wherein the control circuit is configured to determine the color temperature of the outside light outside of the space by receiving, via the communication circuit, a signal from an outside color temperature sensor(see para. [0105]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-8, 16-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shearer.
Regarding claim 5, Shearer discloses the position of the window treatment fabric of the motorized window treatment is closed ("The motorized window treatment 716 may be opened to allow more daylight to enter the building and may be closed to allow less daylight to enter the building" [0088]) when light outside of the space is greater than the color temperature threshold ("allow less daylight to enter the building" involves an upper light/daylight threshold). Shearer further discloses light outside being related to a color temperature ("color temperature sensor may measure the color temperature of the window light to be approximately 5,000 K (e.g., noon daylight)" [0097]).
Shearer lacks the position of the window treatment fabric of the motorized window treatment is closed when the color temperature of the outside light outside of the space is greater than the color temperature threshold as claimed. However, Shearer discloses that the window fabric can be controlled by automated blinds or shaded based on color temperature to achieve certain desired color temperature such as 7,000 K or 5,000 K (sections 0096-0097). The window controller system can communicate with the other devices other than the lighting sources such as window treatment based on the sensor signal to get a desired color temperature (sections 0086, 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to close the motorized window treatment when light outside of the space is greater than the color temperature threshold, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value (closing the window when the outside color temperature is much greater than an indoor color temperature) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, such implementation would allow to improve the controllable color temperature range of the system of Shearer by closing the window to reduce/block influence of the window's light/color-temperature when a desired indoor color temperature is lower than the outdoor color temperature.
Regarding claims 6 and 16-17, Shearer discloses the position of the window treatment fabric of the motorized window treatment is closed ("The motorized window treatment 716 may be opened to allow more daylight to enter the building and may be closed to allow less daylight to enter the building" [0088]) when light outside of the space is greater than the color temperature threshold ("allow less daylight to enter the building" involves an upper light/daylight threshold). Shearer further discloses light outside being related to a color temperature ("color temperature sensor may measure the color temperature of the window light to be approximately 5,000 K (e.g., noon daylight)" [0097]).
Shearer lacks the color temperature threshold is a high color temperature threshold, and wherein the position of the window treatment fabric of the motorized window treatment is closed when the color temperature of the outside light outside of the space is less than a low color temperature threshold as claimed. However, Shearer discloses that the window fabric can be controlled automated blinds or shaded based on color temperature to achieve certain desired color temperature such as 7,000 K or 5,000 K (sections 0096-0097). The window controller system can communicates with the other devices other than the lighting sources such as window treatment based on the sensor signal to get a desired color temperature (sections 0086, 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to close the motorized window treatment when light outside of the space is greater than the color temperature threshold, and controlling the shade based on thresholds since it has been held that discovering an optimum value (closing the window when the outside color temperature is much greater than an indoor color temperature) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, such implementation would allow to improve the controllable color temperature range of the system of Shearer by closing the window to reduce/block influence of the window's light/color-temperature when a desired indoor color temperature is lower than the outdoor color temperature.
Regarding claims 7-8, 18-19 and 25, Shearer discloses a lighting system comprising a color temperature sensor, motorized window treatment and a controller system and wherein the window treatment fabric comprises a blackout fabric (such as drapery, section 0088) and wherein the window treatment fabric comprises a warm sheer fabric (such as drapery, section 0088). But does not specifically disclose the controlling the position of the window fabric based on the temperature threshold as claimed. However, Shearer discloses that the window fabric can be controlled automated blinds or shades based on color temperature to achieve certain desired color temperature such as 7,000 K or 5,000 K (sections 0096-0097). The window controller system can communicate with the other devices other than the lighting sources such as window treatment based on the sensor signal to get a desired color temperature (sections 0086, 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to close the motorized window treatment when light outside of the space is greater than the color temperature threshold, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value (closing the window when the outside color temperature is much greater than an indoor color temperature) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, such implementation would allow to improve the controllable color temperature range of the system of Shearer by closing the window to reduce/block influence of the window's light/color-temperature when a desired indoor color temperature is lower than the outdoor color temperature.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,041,762. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims set forth a method and system of controlling light with a window treatment with the method(claims 1-20 of application and claims 1-14 of patent) and system controller(claims 21-26 of application and claims 15-29 of patent) determining the light inside, outside and entering a room, and controlling the light with the specifics of the amount of lighting considered best determined by a skilled artisan/user, the fabric of differing characteristics, and a sensor.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. AUBREY(STEPHAN) whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BETH A. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights